|
|
1. Accept/reject proposals for upgrades that shall
go out for discussion with the sailors.
2. The IHCA Regions shall be asked to go back to their nations/divisions
and discuss the proposed upgrades with the sailors. This part of the
process shall be considered the comment period as required by the class
rules and it shall be carried out prior to the next AGM (probably in
Singapore February 2003).
3. The next IHCA AGM shall then finally accept or reject the proposed
upgrades.
Note: The European Region has already discussed the proposals. Voting
results are included as information. The European Region is however
welcome to reconsider their position before next IHCA AGM.
Hobie Cat 16
1. Spinnaker?
Rules Committee reply: This upgrade is considered technical possible
without ramifications. Kit is already available. The main issue is whether
the H16 shall be a spinnaker class boat or not.
HCE comment: HCE is working to refine the present up-dated system but to
add optional snuffer system.
(EHCA vote: 0 yes / 11 no / 3 abstention)
2. New jib halyard system allowing adjustment while racing?
Rules Committee reply: This upgrade is considered technical possible
without ramifications. To be deferred if HCE testing results and
illustrations are not made available prior to and not later than the
Noumea AGM.
HCE comment: We still have to design and test. Will work on this in
February/March.
(EHCA vote: 13 yes / 1 no / 0 abstention)
3. Controllable mast rotation system?
Supplementary suggestion from Mal Gray: Existing mast step could be used
with rotation stop completely removed if manufacturers think the mast will
take over rotation, however, I suggest a smaller stop which limits
rotation to a safe position would reduce warranty claims due to mast
failure. A rotation spanner as used on H18 could be attached to mast below
the boom and cleated off in the same way the 18 does. The amount of max
rotation allowed would have to be set by HOBIE CAT CO.
Rules Committee reply: This upgrade is considered technical possible
without ramifications if carried out as suggested by Mal.
HCE comment: No, we see no point, as it would most likely mean a new main
with a loose foot and since this would mean a major rule change with
serious cost to the competitor, we see little merit. Should however the
IHCA vote that, then of course we would co-operate, make prototypes, etcS
(Note: This comment was made prior to the suggestion from Mal).
(EHCA vote: 12 yes / 1 no / 1 abstention)
4. Improved outhaul 2:1?
Rules Committee reply: This upgrade is considered technical possible
without ramifications.
HCE comment: We will work on this February/March. Is fairly easy to do and
cost would be modest.
(EHCA vote: 14 yes / 0 no / 0 abstention)
5. Improved rudder system (less tolerances)?
Rules Committee reply: HCE produces a system that works real fine with
H17, 18, Tiger, FX-1, Fox. It is considered to do the same on the H14/16
if upgraded.
HCE comment: Finally, we have as standard the plastic bushings in all
gudgeons as well as H17, 18, Tiger, FX-1, Fox rudder housings, which is a
major improvement. Still to do is to improve the H14/16 rudder castings,
which need retooling. We hope to do this within the next year or 2.
(EHCA vote: 14 yes / 0 no / 0 abstention)
6. New base for mast to secure raising/lowering?
Rules Committee reply: The benefits of this upgrade are doubtful, as a
mast step link is already available. The IHCA Council is therefore asked
to consider whether this proposal shall still be in or left out.
HCE comment: The US type mast step link is available now as spare part. At
present it can be adapted to secure raising / lowering mast.
(EHCA vote: 3 yes / 7 no / 4 abstention)
7. Adjustable Cunningham system?
Comment from Mal Gray: I think the sailors would appreciate a more easily
adjustable downhaul. Sure it may not slide real easy but a couple of
swivel cams with a 6:1 purchase would be easier to adjust. The current
system is archaic, crude, virtually unadjustable and easily improved.
Rules Committee reply: This upgrade is considered technical possible and
functional if used with the US Gooseneck with trentec bearings.
HCE comment: Not easy with present boom and slider. We could study a fixed
gooseneck similar to the Tiger however, with the foot in the boom this is
not possible. Once again a loose footed main would make this possible,
however once again this means a new sail with cost for sailors, etc..
Presently all we can do is try to get a better gooseneck bearing and
poulies and cleats like the Tiger, however please do not think this will
move freely up and down, as it will not with the present gooseneck.
(EHCA vote: 14 yes / 0 no / 0 abstention)
Improved gooseneck?
Rules Committee reply: Not able to judge as no ideas for new designs have
been presented yet. Suggest proposal is left out until more details are
presented. Recommend sailors to use the US Gooseneck with trentec
bearings. It works fine and is durable. (Mal: The split pin should be
stronger though.)
HCE comment: No miracles yet this requires a new design.
(EHCA vote: 14 yes / 0 no / 0 abstention)
8. Vertical cut/designed sails?
Rules Committee reply: Has already been tried in the US.
HCUS comment: Here are some experiences from the introduction of the Mylar
sail for the H-16 from approximately 10 years ago.
HCC introduced a vertical cut mylar sail, at the time to primarily freshen
up the look of the H-16. There initially was some thought about making a
sail that would induce better performance with modern characteristics
built in to it. After consulting with the Alter Family about this we came
to the conclusion that a vertical cut sail, if we were to do it would be
best if it conformed in size, shape and batten lengths to the original
sail. As a result, Jay Glaser was given the instructions to make a
vertical cut sail that would adhere to the outline, shape and performance
as much as possible.
When the sail was introduced it was initially received with a fair bit if
enthusiasm. Many sailors purchased the new vertical cut sail with new
boats because they looked different, and to many, it looked better. On the
race course, the results were not as good. Dacron sails were found to be
faster on some legs of the course and sailors with the vertical cut mylar
sails had difficulty making them sails as quickly as a Dacron sail. I
personally got in to measuring the chord length and pocket depth and
placement of both the sails. In a static environment (no wind) the sails
measured nearly identical with similar trim characteristics.
The differences in sailing characteristics on the water we theorized was
due to the differences in materials. Dacron is stretchy and mylar is not.
The Dacron sail in the end was determined to be the favoured sail by
almost all racers. Today it is unlikely to see a mylar sail on the race
course, and if you do it is not being used by one of the better sailors.
In hindsight, we were rather lucky that the Mylar sail was made the way we
did. We were also lucky that it was deemed to be slightly slower on the
racecourse. Since we are a one design, if it were a markedly faster sail,
then Hobie owners would have been forced to purchase new mylar sails to be
competitive. This is great for the manufacturers, but could have been
disastrous for the Hobie Class. This is not the premise that our class is
based on.
If you have any more questions regarding this issue I will be happy to
answer them, since I was in the middle of these decisions when they were
made as well as Jeff Alter.
HCE comment: We think this is doable. It would open up marketing
possibilities, which we today miss with the current horizontal cut. We see
no use to proceed as long as association do not agree to allow this.
(EHCA vote: 10 yes / 1 no / 3 abstention)
9. Mylar sails?
Rules Committee reply: Has already been tried in the US.
HCUS comment: The same as with the above.
HCE comment: The same as with the above.
(EHCA vote: 8 yes / 2 no / 4 abstention)
10. Trapeze short cut protector (fixed shock cord leads mounted underneath
side beams).
May be ready for presentation as it should only be matter of allowing it
in the class rules for HC16.
Rules Committee reply: This upgrade is considered technical possible
without ramifications. If agreed it should only be matter of allowing it
in the class rules as an option.
(EHCA vote: 0 yes / 1 no / 13 abstention)
HCE comment: Here we are uncertain as to what is required. In addition is
this a point being requested by the majority of sailors, or is this desire
of a small group?
Hobie Cat 14
1. Controllable mast rotation system?
Supplementary suggestion from Mal Gray: Existing mast step could be used
with rotation stop completely removed if manufacturers think the mast will
take over rotation, however, I suggest a smaller stop which limits
rotation to a safe position would reduce warranty claims due to mast
failure. A rotation spanner as used on H18 could be attached to mast below
the boom and cleated off in the same way the 18 does. The amount of max
rotation allowed would have to be set by HOBIE CAT CO.
Rules Committee reply: This upgrade is considered technical possible
without ramifications if carried out as suggested by Mal.
(EHCA vote: 12 yes / 0 no / 2 abstention)
2. Improved outhaul 2:1?
Rules Committee reply: This upgrade is considered technical possible
without ramifications. Will in principle be similar to the H16 system HCE
is currently working on.
(EHCA vote: 4 yes / 3 no / 7 abstention)
3. Improved rudder system (less tolerances)?
Rules Committee reply: HCE produces a system that works real fine with
H17, 18, Tiger, FX-1, Fox. It is considered to do the same on the H14/16
if upgraded.
HCE comment: Finally, we have as standard the plastic bushings in all
gudgeons as well as H17, 18, Tiger, FX-1, Fox rudder housings, which is a
major improvement. Still to do is to improve the H14/16 rudder castings,
which need retooling. We hope to do this within the next year or 2.
(EHCA vote: 14 yes / 0 no / 0 abstention)
New base for mast to secure raising/lowering?
Rules Committee reply: The benefits of this upgrade are doubtful, as a
mast step link is already available. The IHCA Council is therefore asked
to consider whether this proposal shall still be in or left out.
(EHCA vote: 1 yes / 8 no / 5 abstention)
4. Adjustable Cunningham system?
Comment from Mal Gray: I think the sailors would appreciate a more easily
adjustable downhaul. Sure it may not slide real easy but a couple of
swivel cams with a 6:1 purchase would be easier to adjust. The current
system is archaic, crude, virtually unadjustable and easily improved.
Rules Committee reply: This upgrade is considered technical possible and
functional if used with the US Gooseneck with trentec bearings.
(EHCA vote: 10 yes / 0 no / 4 abstention)
5. Improved gooseneck?
Rules Committee reply: Not able to judge as no ideas for new designs have
been presented yet. Suggest proposal is left out until more details are
presented. Recommend sailors to use the US Gooseneck with trentec
bearings. It works fine and is durable. (Mal: The split pin should be
stronger though.)
(EHCA vote: 7 yes / 2 no / 5 abstention)
6. Vertical cut/designed sails?
Rules Committee reply: The same as with the above for H16
(EHCA vote: 3 yes / 5 no / 6 abstention)
7. Mylar sails?
Rules Committee reply: The same as with the above for H16
(EHCA vote: 7 yes / 2 no / 5 abstention)
Best regards
Erik Olsen
IHCA Rules Committee Chair
E-mail: rules@hobieclass.com
|
